Constantinople In Islamic Eschatology

Constantinople in Islamic Eschatology: From Politics to Religion Modern interpretations of the Islamic apocalypse often involve a successful Muslim conquest of Rome as an indicator of the end times. The apocalyptic tradition involving the fall of Rome is reflected in eschatological expectations during the first centuries of Islam, where Constantinople is substituted for Rome. However, the fall of Constantinople is never mentioned in the Qur’an, and is only observed in the canonical hadiths compiled roughly two centuries after the death of the Prophet. How, then, did this idea enter Islamic expectations of the apocalypse? This paper provides an answer to this puzzle by first elaborating on the attitudes of the Qur’an and the hadiths towards

The Qur’an’s only explicit referral to the Romans is located in Sura 30: “The Byzantines have been defeated in the nearest land. But they after their defeat, will overcome. Within three to nine years. To Allah belongs the command before and after. And that day the believers will rejoice in the victory of Allah.” David Cook argues that this sura, dated to the time of Muhammad and chronicling the Byzantine victory against the Zoroastrian Sasanians, proves “that there was a strong feeling of sympathy and even religious support for the Christian Byzantines at this time, when politically the believers had nothing to gain from manifesting such sympathy.” On the other hand, we have hadiths describing the conquest of Constantinople as a conflict requiring divine intervention aiding the Muslims. This is strongly seen in Sunan Ibn Majah: “[The Prophet] said: ‘You will fight Banu Asfar (the Romans) and … will conquer Constantinople with Tasbih and Takbir and will acquire such spoils of war as has never been seen before, which they will distribute by the shieldful. Someone will come and say: “Masih (The Messiah) has appeared in your land!” But he will be lying.” The words Tasbih (glorification of God) and Takbir (recitations in praise of God) connote a supernatural aspect to the conquest of Constantinople, suggesting that the battle will be won by the Muslims

However, literary traditions about the Umayyads strongly suggest that the religious nature of the conquests dissolved after Muhammad’s death at 632 AD. The Arabs have not yet taken seriously a religious conflict with the Christian Byzantine Empire. Martin Sicker notes that when Damascus, “a major centre of Christian life in the East,” fell to Khalid ibn-al-Walid in 635 AD, Khalid preserved the Damascene churches, and merely asked the Damascenes to “pay the poll tax,” signifying a tolerance for Byzantine Christians. Although Khalid, as Cook also notes, was appointed a military commander by Muhammad himself, his tolerance of Christians imply that the further conquests of the Arabs after Muhammad’s death were no longer motivated by religion. Daniel W. Brown also writes that amidst the conquests of the Arabs, “Christians continued to be Christians and Jews continued to be Jews.” Another scholar, G. R. Hawting, argues that the first caliph of the Umayyad dynasty, Caliph Mu’awiya, “was respectful of the traditions of his Christian subjects” that he has a member of a Greek Orthodox family as a political official and advisor. Sicker’s observation, that there are instances where “Christian officials who earlier had served the Byzantine government were retained in their positions,” furthers Hawting’s argument, and supports the notion that Mu’awiya is a caliph who is not